Talk:Decisions of the Judge

From Nomicapolis

(Difference between revisions)
 
(12 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
I edited this page to remove a redirect to [[Talk:326]]. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 18:20, 29 November 2006 (EST)
+
{| border="2" cellpadding="4" style="text-align:left" align="right"
 +
! '''Archived Discussion'''
 +
|-
 +
| [[Talk:Decisions of the Judge/Dec06|Decisions of the Judge/Dec06]]
 +
|
 +
|}
-
I request a Judgment concerning proposal [[337]]. It is not proposed in the proper way per [[326]], no date and time is given for the end of debate, but rather the phrase "later date and time." I do not feel that this meets the intent of the rule.  --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 20:01, 1 December 2006 (EST)
+
I request a Judgement on whether Proposal 357 should have failed. According to Rule [[326]], section 2, a proposal in those set of circumstances is 'dismissed', and it is not clear whether this is the same as failing for the purposes of scoring. Should [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] have lost 10 points? --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 06:05, 5 January 2007 (EST)
-
I request a Judgement to determine what timezone shall determine the 'first day of the month'.  The election could be considered over if we go by official system time and not EST, as proposal [[342]] would state.  I also posted this on the discussion page of actual December vote. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 20:12, 1 December 2006 (EST)
+
== [[378]] vote ==
-
I request a Judgement on Rule 302. Rule [[302]] states: "Players are limited to one Nomicapolis account in play".  Can you define 'in play'.  If a player can legally remove themselves from the census and then rejoin "as a brand new player", it would seem to suggest 'in play' could be understood 'in use'.  If this is not the opinion of the judge, this rule would seem to contradict itself. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 20:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)
+
I request judgement on whether BobTHJ properly closed the voting of [[378]]. [[109]] states that the vote needed to be "unanimous among the eligible voters".  I believe that several voters were Active at the beginning of the voting period who did not vote, so the vote cannot have passed. I'm uncertain, under [[372]], whether the vote should have been held open for 14 days or if it can be closed as failing once Quorum has been met and 48 hours have passed since the last vote, but I don't believe Quorum has been met in any case, and if it has I believe the result should be Failed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 20:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
-
:I believe you have addressed this.  If you also think so and if it is permissable within the rules, I'd like to withdraw my request... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)
+
-
::That's fine. I believe AJF009 covers your question, and I see nothing saying you can't withdraw a CFJ. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 23:01, 2 December 2006 (EST)
+
-- I overlooked Rule #109 when determining if voting was complete. However, all active voters has voted at the time I closed voting (since I had just made everyone else inactive), so it's a tough call. My apologies for not being more cautious. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 20:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
==Quorum==
-
Quoteth the Judge: "I would suggest that Admin create some way for players to delete their player account."
+
Chuck has become active since the recent proposals [[393]], [[394]], [[395]] were opened for voting. While rule [[362]] says he is not an eligible voter, it is ambiguous if Chuck becoming an active player increases quorum from 2 votes to 3 per rule [[371]]. I request judgment on the current value of Quorum.
-
: I am afraid that the best that I can do is block access of player accounts. Would that be acceptable? --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 02:26, 3 December 2006 (EST)
+
:I'll try to get to this tomorrow...i just got home and want to spend awhile looking the rules to make sure i properly interpret the situation.  Thank you for bringing this to attention. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
:: I believe this point is moot, as all 3 of those proposals require a unanimous vote among players who were Active when they were brought to vote. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
::: Indeed it is, and I figured it would be, however it would be nice to have a ruling anyway should the situation arise in the future. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 10:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
-
::Hmm...not sure. I guess that would work...if a player doesn't have access to an account, he can't really be penalized for "having" it, right? Go ahead and block access to all accounts that are not listed on the Census as either an active or inactive player. On second thought - if there are any accounts that have registered in the past two or three days, leave them alone.  Those could be potential players just trying to get a grip on the rules before diving in. Also, if it's not too much trouble, send an email to the accounts that you block explaining the situation to them and tell them that they need to create a new account and add their name to the Census to play. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:19, 3 December 2006 (EST)
+
==[[393]],[[395]]==
-
 
+
Before I score these 2, I'd like clarification on whether Darus67 should have been required to vote For both of these for them to pass. I think the rules make him an active player as of the start of the voting period, but he hasn't had any activity on the wiki since about 2 hours after he joined.  [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 14:12, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
-
::: Alright, I will block access to all users who are not listed on the [[Census]] page as either active or inactive, excluding those that registered within the last week or so, I will not be able to send emails to them but I can put text on their user page to the effect described above. However, I would like to request that all [[Nomicapolis:Administrators|Administrators]] retain unblocked status as they have responsibilities to the wiki itself. --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 16:05, 3 December 2006 (EST)
+
:Oops! I forgot about Darus67. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
-
 
+
-
Request for clarification of '''AJF009''': Research in to the history of [[Census]] and [[Special:Listusers|Listusers]] poses some questions that might be relevent to this judgment. The following users are not listed in the census currently:
+
-
* '''[[User:Admin|Admin]]''' - was listed as a player and removed before the the inception of [[302]]. Admin is currently the non-playing account of [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]]. 
+
-
* [[User:Augast15|Augast15]]
+
-
* [[User:Justicebork|Justicebork]]
+
-
* [[User:Lars Atomica|Lars Atomica]]
+
-
* [[User:Qurantz|Qurantz]]
+
-
* '''[[User:RobKohr|RobKohr]]''' - the owner of the domain that Nomicapolis operates on. No edits.
+
-
* [[User:Tom Foolery|Tom Foolery]] - addressed by AJF009
+
-
 
+
-
The following users are listed in the census page but do not have user accounts:
+
-
; painintheear
+
-
; adoarns
+
-
 
+
-
The second list is pretty straight-forward. The players added themselves without first registering. A violation of rule [[302]]. and therefore therefore the names should be excised.
+
-
 
+
-
The names within first list, per ruling, should be blocked but that would revoke the editing priviledges of both [[User:Admin|Admin]] as well as [[User:RobKohr|RobKohr]]. I would greatly prefer that RobKohr  retain editing privileges as this user is the owner and is ultimately responsible for the content within this wiki.
+
-
 
+
-
User Admin exists to ensure that the wiki does what it is supposed to. Admin will not intentionally participate in the game except to provide evidence and ensure that any actions ordered or requested to be carried out. If maintaining of both user accounts [[User:Admin|Admin]] as well as [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] is against the rules and an option is given to either resign from the game or maintaining an admin presence then I will, without hestitaion, confine my activities to the administration of the wiki. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 14:36, 4 December 2006 (EST)
+
-
 
+
-
:Well, it wasn't really a "ruling"; more like a response to your question about my request.  I would say leave Admin and RobKohr as they are.  Block the other non-player accounts (There's really no way to actually unregister them?). [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 15:18, 4 December 2006 (EST)
+
-
 
+
-
:: No, the wiki software that we use was originally written for Wikipedia and it is really provides no functionality that I know to delete users accounts. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 21:23, 4 December 2006 (EST)
+

Current revision as of 18:29, 31 May 2007

Archived Discussion
Decisions of the Judge/Dec06

I request a Judgement on whether Proposal 357 should have failed. According to Rule 326, section 2, a proposal in those set of circumstances is 'dismissed', and it is not clear whether this is the same as failing for the purposes of scoring. Should Applejuicefool have lost 10 points? --Finisterre 06:05, 5 January 2007 (EST)

378 vote

I request judgement on whether BobTHJ properly closed the voting of 378. 109 states that the vote needed to be "unanimous among the eligible voters". I believe that several voters were Active at the beginning of the voting period who did not vote, so the vote cannot have passed. I'm uncertain, under 372, whether the vote should have been held open for 14 days or if it can be closed as failing once Quorum has been met and 48 hours have passed since the last vote, but I don't believe Quorum has been met in any case, and if it has I believe the result should be Failed. Wooble 20:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

-- I overlooked Rule #109 when determining if voting was complete. However, all active voters has voted at the time I closed voting (since I had just made everyone else inactive), so it's a tough call. My apologies for not being more cautious. BobTHJ 20:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Quorum

Chuck has become active since the recent proposals 393, 394, 395 were opened for voting. While rule 362 says he is not an eligible voter, it is ambiguous if Chuck becoming an active player increases quorum from 2 votes to 3 per rule 371. I request judgment on the current value of Quorum.

I'll try to get to this tomorrow...i just got home and want to spend awhile looking the rules to make sure i properly interpret the situation. Thank you for bringing this to attention. --Tucana25 00:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
I believe this point is moot, as all 3 of those proposals require a unanimous vote among players who were Active when they were brought to vote. Wooble 08:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Indeed it is, and I figured it would be, however it would be nice to have a ruling anyway should the situation arise in the future. BobTHJ 10:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

393,395

Before I score these 2, I'd like clarification on whether Darus67 should have been required to vote For both of these for them to pass. I think the rules make him an active player as of the start of the voting period, but he hasn't had any activity on the wiki since about 2 hours after he joined. Wooble 14:12, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Oops! I forgot about Darus67. BobTHJ 14:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://72.14.177.54/Nomicapolis/Talk:Decisions_of_the_Judge"
Personal tools